Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

Did any of you read the case facts or the ruling? Because it certainly appears some of you have not and instead have believed the rhetoric from the extreme sides in this case.

For one, there were only 4 types of contraception Hobby Lobby (on behalf of their employees) opposed -- two forms of the morning after pill and two types of IUD's -- which they believed amounted to defacto abortions since they didn't allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus. All other forms of birth control are fine in their eyes, including vasectomy, birth control pills, condoms, etc, so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy claims are coming from.

Second, this ruling isn't bestowing religious freedoms to a corporation as many are portraying it. It's a recognition that the employees of said cooperation have a right to free exercise of their religion at the work place. That's a distinction many on the left are refusing to accept.

Lastly, the slippery slope argument about what it means in the future is a fallacy. Any SCOTUS ruling can be labeled as such so it means everything and nothing at the same time.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

Originally Posted by Haloti92

There is nothing chauvinistic about the stance. For starters, the comparison for a vasectomy is a tubal ligation and Hobby Lobby will cover and always has covered that, along with other forms of birth control.

As for abortifacients, HR has it right. Contraception is defined as something that prevents conception. Conception absolutely can be viewed (and has been viewed) as the fertilization of an egg. Anything taken or done that destroys a fertilized egg can absolutely be viewed as an abortifacient, even if you happen to choose to define the term differently.

The only possible gripe in terms of the abortifacients objected to is Plan B, as recent science seems to indicate it doesn't actually prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg as previously thought, but the label still claims it does/will/might and scientists have been slow to officially change their mind on it, even as the evidence keeps coming in.

And of course, the crucial aspect here, and why the "war on women" meme is absurd nonsense (along with the similarly 'cute' but vapid phrases like 'keep your rosaries off my ovaries' and 'keep the boardroom out of my bedroom,' etc.) is that once you ask/demand someone else pay for and provide something for you, YOU have made it their business, not the other way around. Hobby Lobby is asking precisely to stay away from your ovaries and bedroom, but the government/you won't let them stay away.

It is the height of selfishness to dismiss someone's religious views, especially considering the Constitution and the founding of the country, while simultaneously demanding they fork over money for you. And that is exactly what this case was about.

The RFRA was passed specifically for cases like this one, and the administration knew flat out that demanding that everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, subsidize these controversial drugs/procedures would cause a big fight; which is precisely why Democrats did not explicitly include it in the written law, and went to great pains to deceive the small band of pro-life Democrats like Stupak with phony signing statements and bald-faced lies, only to turn around and mandate it from the HHS after the law was passed (and to be sure, the law does not pass if this mandate were included at the time).

None of these birth control methods are being banned or are any harder to come by than they were a couple years ago (which is not hard at all), so the "back to the dark ages" and "back to the Jim Crow" nonsense is targeted towards morons only. This is solely a matter of who pays for them or provides them. And if the government feels that strongly about it, it can pass a law to provide them directly to whoever wants them without infringing on anyone's beliefs at all. That is the sensible way to go here, the only question is why some people refuse to accept the sensible way to go. So far I have seen no good answer.

Awesome, awesome post. The only thing I would add is that a few had mentioned make birth control over the counter so that it doesn't require prescription and we can do away with this someone give it to me for free nonsense.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Awesome, awesome post. The only thing I would add is that a few had mentioned make birth control over the counter so that it doesn't require prescription and we can do away with this someone give it to me for free nonsense.

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Awesome, awesome post. The only thing I would add is that a few had mentioned make birth control over the counter so that it doesn't require prescription and we can do away with this someone give it to me for free nonsense.

Good point.

There's really no reason it shouldn't be over the counter at this point.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Awesome, awesome post. The only thing I would add is that a few had mentioned make birth control over the counter so that it doesn't require prescription and we can do away with this someone give it to me for free nonsense.

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

As for abortifacients, HR has it right. Contraception is defined as something that prevents conception. Conception absolutely can be viewed (and has been viewed) as the fertilization of an egg.

Hence the point I already made: Hobby Lobby is odiously hypocritical for continuing to cover vasectomies. Last I checked, vasectomies prevent conception.

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Anything taken or done that destroys a fertilized egg can absolutely be viewed as an abortifacient, even if you happen to choose to define the term differently.

Do you actually understand how most daily birth control pills work? Most do not work by "destroying a fertilized egg." Most prevent fertilization by making the 'shell' around the egg damn near impossible for sperm to penetrate. Therefore, NO: Common daily birth control is not an abortifacient.

Originally Posted by Haloti92

And of course, the crucial aspect here, and why the "war on women" meme is absurd nonsense (along with the similarly 'cute' but vapid phrases like 'keep your rosaries off my ovaries' and 'keep the boardroom out of my bedroom,' etc.)

Oh, look! A man who finds the War On Women "meme" to be "absurd nonsense!" Now, there is something not seen every day. I would never have guessed that someone who has never had to live a single day in the life of the gender that is often viewed and treated as less would think a 100% demonstrably real, harmful, systemic phenomenon to be an "absurd" "meme." Although I just tried, there really are no words to describe how backward and senseless you just made yourself sound.

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Hobby Lobby is asking precisely to stay away from your ovaries and bedroom, but the government/you won't let them stay away.

Then they should stop covering vasectomies and Viagra.

Originally Posted by Haloti92

It is the height of selfishness to dismiss someone's religious views, especially considering the Constitution and the founding of the country, while simultaneously demanding they fork over money for you. And that is exactly what this case was about.

The Constitution does not grant people the right to impose their religious beliefs on others. I personally don't give a single fuck what gods you worship or what manmade fantasies you have internalized. Those fantasies/unprovable beliefs do not give you the right to dictate to others how they go about their health. And for many women, birth control is also a health issue.

I'm willing to bet most people who go the "Don't trample my religious freedom to impose on your freedoms!" route would do a QUICK about-face if the situation put them on the receiving end of a ruling that supported a religion they were not a part of.

Originally Posted by Haloti92

None of these birth control methods are being banned or are any harder to come by than they were a couple years ago (which is not hard at all), so the "back to the dark ages" and "back to the Jim Crow" nonsense is targeted towards morons only.

Funny. I'd say a moron was a person who didn't see the danger in the government letting the religious beliefs of employers affect how they compensate employees. Because there certainly aren't hundreds of religions/denominations in this country with thousands of contradictory, horrifying beliefs.

Originally Posted by Haloti92

This is solely a matter of who pays for them or provides them. And if the government feels that strongly about it, it can pass a law to provide them directly to whoever wants them without infringing on anyone's beliefs at all. That is the sensible way to go here, the only question is why some people refuse to accept the sensible way to go. So far I have seen no good answer.

See above. Small scale: Inconsistent internal logic on the part of Hobby Lobby. Large scale: Slippery slope. Though it may perhaps be an exercise in futility to argue sensibility with a man who thinks the War On Women is an "absurd" "meme."

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Awesome, awesome post. The only thing I would add is that a few had mentioned make birth control over the counter so that it doesn't require prescription and we can do away with this someone give it to me for free nonsense.

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

I see aka is completely ignoring there facts of this case and instead is favoring the rhetoric.

The reason there's no hypocrisy is simple. Hobby Lobby was opposed to four types of birth control, all of which in some manner or another destroy an egg that's already been fertilized. Thus, they are fine with both control methods such as vasectomies, the pill, etc since those forms of birth control prevent the egg from ever being fertilized in the first place.

Funny how her side seems to forget this fact. Just as they only see the portions of the constitution that fit their narrow argument. Last time I checked, there were two parts to the religious clause to the Constitution.

Last edited by HoustonRaven; 07-09-2014 at 09:56 AM.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Hence the point I already made: Hobby Lobby is odiously hypocritical for continuing to cover vasectomies. Last I checked, vasectomies prevent conception.

Hobby Lobby does cover contraception. And tubal ligation. There is no hypocrisy at all regarding vasectomies. Anyone who imagines "odious hypocrisy" where there is none, or who lies about it to fool others who are too ill-informed to make their own opinions is certainly worthy of being called out.

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Do you actually understand how most daily birth control pills work? Most do not work by "destroying a fertilized egg." Most prevent fertilization by making the 'shell' around the egg damn near impossible for sperm to penetrate. Therefore, NO: Common daily birth control is not an abortifacient.

No one said common birth control is an abortifacient, and now I am forced to believe you aren't even reading the plain English in front of you. I really think you need to actually do some research instead of going to partisan political sites and gobbling up propaganda then repeating it in forums interested in intelligent discussions. Your blurb above has literally nothing to do with Hobby Lobby case. Nothing.

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Oh, look! A man who finds the War On Women "meme" to be "absurd nonsense!" Now, there is something not seen every day. I would never have guessed that someone who has never had to live a single day in the life of the gender that is often viewed and treated as less would think a 100% demonstrably real, harmful, systemic phenomenon to be an "absurd" "meme." Although I just tried, there really are no words to describe how backward and senseless you just made yourself sound.

Oh look! A vapid retort that does not in any way address any argument. Just a bunch of empty words and a few impotent insults at the end. Do you know how ignorant and senseless you just made yourself sound?

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Then they should stop covering vasectomies and Viagra.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about as this response obviously fails two separate ways.

I already addressed why vasectomies and Viagra are not in any way, shape or form abortifacients. So fail #1 for you.

And of course, I already addressed why demanding that someone subsidize your bedroom activities precludes you from accusing them of entering your bedroom uninvited. So fail #2 for you.

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

The Constitution does not grant people the right to impose their religious beliefs on others. I personally don't give a single fuck what gods you worship or what manmade fantasies you have internalized. Those fantasies/unprovable beliefs do not give you the right to dictate to others how they go about their health. And for many women, birth control is also a health issue.

You are right about the Constitution not giving people the right to force their beliefs on others, unfortunately for you, there is no instance of that occurring here. Not in the least. The Constitution established a protection for religion from government interference. That is what we are talking about here, a relationship between the government and the people (the Green family), the employees are entirely irrelevant to the Constitutional/RFRA argument here.

As much as this might surprise you, I am an atheist, though not a cartoonish militant one like many others. I was not raised in a religious household and have been to a church maybe four times in my life (when staying with friend as a child, couple of weddings and a baptism). But unlike you and a depressing percentage of others, I am able to view logical and legal arguments/issues on their merits, without willingly ignoring facts, laws or realities that are inconvenient to my desired outcome. And this case is as obvious as it gets, as long as one uses the law, the RFRA, and not their own personal desires, to decide the case.

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

I'm willing to bet most people who go the "Don't trample my religious freedom to impose on your freedoms!" route would do a QUICK about-face if the situation put them on the receiving end of a ruling that supported a religion they were not a part of.

Again, you are acting as if the judges were just sitting there and deciding the case based on their desires of the end results, instead of judging the case using facts, logic and the relevant laws of the land (RFRA). I realize that disgraceful leftist justices are prone to do exactly that, but expecting all the justices to be disgraceful is your problem, not the problem of the justices you are complaining about.

No one was imposed on at all, except Hobby Lobby being imposed on by the government (until the court overturned the illegal imposition). You do not have a "right" to have a third party give you something. And the government is not unlimited in its ability to demand a citizen pay for (or do) something.

Read the last paragraph as many times as necessary to absorb what it says.

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Funny. I'd say a moron was a person who didn't see the danger in the government letting the religious beliefs of employers affect how they compensate employees. Because there certainly aren't hundreds of religions/denominations in this country with thousands of contradictory, horrifying beliefs.

Nope, the morons are still the ones that swallow arguments claiming that undoing a mandate first enforced in 2012 suddenly makes us go back not to 2011, but 50 years further. But considering your obvious confusion about this case, from soup to nuts, I am not surprised in the least that you arrived at the wrong conclusion here as well.

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

See above. Small scale: Inconsistent internal logic on the part of Hobby Lobby. Large scale: Slippery slope. Though it may perhaps be an exercise in futility to argue sensibility with a man who thinks the War On Women is an "absurd" "meme."

And a whole lot of nothing to finish off the flailing.

No inconsistent logic (except coming from you), no slippery slope concerning the RFRA (or no slipperier than any other issue/decision that requires strict scrutiny, and there are plenty of those), and yep War On Women is an absurd meme meant to influence dimbulbs (note: I am not saying that the meme is not effective, as the country has plenty of dimbulbs) .